User talk:Berrylvr

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Josh Shapiro, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A missing title error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 20:44, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

You have recently edited a page related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia's norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Additionally, you must be logged in, have 500 edits, and have an account age of 30 days, and you are not allowed to make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any page within this topic.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 10:03, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello,

Just clarifying something, as I'm new. That page I edited isn't related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, as it's a page about a politician. The automated notice above refers to "page related to the Arab–Israeli conflict"

I don't have the ability to edit pages about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict because they're locked.

Is this message in error? Berrylvr (talk) 15:54, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

Per ARBPIA, you shouldn't edit anything relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict unless your account is extended confirmed. This goes also for things relating to the conflict on pages that are not related to it, such as Josh Shapiro; the rest of the page is fine to edit, but unless you're extended confirmed you should not be editing the Israel-Palestine section. As such I have reverted the section back to the way it was prior to your edits; please be mindful not to edit things related to this in future. Thanks, ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 16:22, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

Berrylvr, after receiving the above warning and clarification, you made this edit to Graham Platner, in clear violation of the restriction (changing "the Gaza genocide" to "Israel's assault on Gaza"). Continuing to make edits to the Arab-Israel topic area before being extended confirmed may result in losing your editing privileges. Generalrelative (talk) 16:55, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

Is it possible I could make an edit request to provide non-disruptive information prior to becoming extended-confirmed? This goes for any article with this topic. Berrylvr (talk) 16:55, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

Yes, wherever the article's talk page is not locked, you are free to make an edit request. See WP:ARBECR for details. Generalrelative (talk) 17:00, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

I made that edit before receiving the warning. Thank you. Berrylvr (talk) 22:08, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

I made the edit before receiving the warning. Berrylvr (talk) 22:09, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Doug Weller. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Nazi concentration camp badge have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Deleting sourced material is not a grammar edit Doug Weller talk 11:20, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. With all due respect, I'm not sure how that's disruptive. There were no citations in the article previously. I couldn't find any proof that the pink triangle is the most commonly used symbol. The article is fraught with unsubstantiated claims. Berrylvr (talk) 14:41, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

Please do not use misleading edit summaries when making changes to Wikipedia pages, as you did to Nazi concentration camp badge. This behavior is viewed as disruptive, and continuation may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Doug Weller talk 11:21, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

Was my editing disruptive because I didn't include a good edit summary or because of my editing itself? Thank you. Berrylvr (talk) 14:47, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

Both. Doug Weller talk 16:26, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

That was in the WP:LEAD which exists to summarize the article. Doug Weller talk 11:23, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

Please, please stop this. Bad source, poor language — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs) 09:58, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

The source was not bad. It's a website that reports on bias in various news sites. The original text referenced "fact checkers" so I found a source that's based around fact checking news. I didn't know the lead don't need sources. Berrylvr (talk) 15:48, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

But see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. There is some disagreement but it’s not a great source. Doug Weller talk 16:26, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

{{unblock-spamun|hobbyhiker99|Someone else seems to have assumed my IP address and started spamming pages. I don't use this account or my IP address to spam or to promote products. I'm a casual editor.}}Berrylvr (talk) 02:26, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Your account is not blocked, and you do not need to change your username. What message are you receiving when you attempt to edit? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:24, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

It was blocked briefly last night because someone had used my IP address or range to make an account for spam purposes. I don't have the message, but it's not blocked anymore. Thanks for the quick response. Berrylvr (talk) 14:17, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you.

Plus repeated violations of WP:ARBPIA. Theofunny (talk) 12:40, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Reverted at Graham Platner by @Generalrelative

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Graham_Platner&diff=prev&oldid=1329921935 Theofunny (talk) 12:41, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Reverted at Nazi concentration camp badge by someone in the edit history.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nazi_concentration_camp_badge&diff=prev&oldid=1330144466 Theofunny (talk) 12:45, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Reverted at Josh Shapiro for removal of sourced content, whitewashing and misleading edit summaries by me.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Josh_Shapiro&diff=prev&oldid=1329280045

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Josh_Shapiro&diff=prev&oldid=1329260011

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Josh_Shapiro&diff=prev&oldid=1329258884

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Josh_Shapiro&diff=prev&oldid=1329257118 Theofunny (talk) 12:46, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Remaining edits at Josh Shapiro have been reverted for violating ARBPIA by @Ser!. Theofunny (talk) 12:47, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Reverted at Itamar Ben-Avi by me.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Itamar_Ben-Avi&diff=prev&oldid=1331833633 Theofunny (talk) 12:50, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

On this edit, you removed all the context about how Goldman has called for ceasefires, etc. and added more Pro-Israel context. I'm not sure how this isn't bad faith editing? Or what makes it different from what I'm doing?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dan_Goldman&diff=prev&oldid=1326739536 Berrylvr (talk) 19:02, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Self-published sources like his own releases and voting actions of bills WP:SPS are not WP:RSP! You need to find reliable sources and accurately summarize it. You literally added a cherry picked paragraphs from one of his releases to make him look like a champion of human rights which is why I manually reverted it. Theofunny (talk) 08:03, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dan_Goldman&diff=prev&oldid=1330777585

You did that once again here by adding his SPS. He's on record on mainstream media blaming Hamas for starvation and the humanitarian catastrophe. And you literally added fake information regarding his calls for stopping bombing which he has never made. Theofunny (talk) 08:08, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Yes, he did. You're singling me out purposefully. Here's a source, which I even added in the part you deleted: "During Sunday’s interview, the governor criticized Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s leadership and called for an end to the war in Gaza, saying “the suffering needs to stop” while adding that Hamas needed to be out of power as well."

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/sep/21/josh-shapiro-pennsylvania-political-violence#:~:text=The%20attack%20on%20the%20governor's,out%20of%20power%20as%20well. Berrylvr (talk) 16:25, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Another instance of vandalism with a misleading edit summary reverted by @Doug_Weller.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nazi_concentration_camp_badge&diff=prev&oldid=1330089521 Theofunny (talk) 12:52, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Another reverted biased addition at Dan Goldman relating to ARBPIA.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dan_Goldman&diff=prev&oldid=1329665175 Theofunny (talk) 12:58, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Another reverted biased ARBPIA addition at Anti-Jewish Boycotts.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1329705706 Theofunny (talk) 13:06, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

I'm new to Wikipedia. I've already received a warning for what you've flagged above, and I understand why some of it is flagged. I didn't know I need 500 edits to be able to edit this topic. I do have to say, a few instances don't quite make sense to me, perhaps you can enlighten me as I'm a new user.

I feel like it's biased to include a uniform narrative of someone's views, because they're complex. I don't consider this to be "whitewashing." Disallowing the inclusion of the entirety of someone's views is against the whole point of Wikipedia and is more so advancing one specific narrative. I'm trying to build a balanced perspective because many of these pages aren't written to make someone appear to have nuanced views.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Josh_Shapiro&diff=prev&oldid=1329260011

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dan_Goldman&diff=prev&oldid=1329665175 Berrylvr (talk) 16:18, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

You need more than 500 edits to edit this topic, you need to be active for atleast 1 month and breaking up big edits into dozens of small edits will lead to you getting banned for WP:GAMINGTHESYSTEM. Theofunny (talk) 08:10, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello,

I edited them prior to knowing the rule. I stopped editing the topic when I was notified this was the rule. Berrylvr (talk) 15:47, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Let's be clear, you remove sourced information with misleading edit summaries, add new information without accurately summarizing the articles, repeatedly use non-RS sources and vandalize ARBPIA pages from strongly aanti-Palestinian perspective. I will be breaking down all of the reverted edits in the coming days. Theofunny (talk) 08:12, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Again, I edited ARBPIA topic before I knew the rule... and this isn't true at all. Could you provide an example? Berrylvr (talk) 00:04, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

And becoming EXC doesn't mean that you can continue the same pattern of vandalism "from your perspective" on a sensitive topic like ARBPIA. Theofunny (talk) 08:57, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

It's not from my perspective. I'm not sure why you're attacking me. Berrylvr (talk) 02:06, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

One more instance of ARBPIA violation.

Raphael Warnock: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia Theofunny (talk) 07:15, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing certain namespaces ((Article)) for abuse of editing privileges.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Doug Weller talk 10:50, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi, Doug Weller! Could you give a bit more insight into the edits that resulted in this partial block? Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 04:22, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Berrylvr (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log) • SI)

---

Request reason:

Hello, I understand why an admin would look at my account and wonder, given the number of reverts by an individual user on my talk page as seen above. The admin may wonder if I'm a vandal because of the reverts. The claims that I have a bias towards any group in writing in those edits are false. I'm also not trying to game the system. In the above, I've added context in edits that have been unfairly mischaracterized. The warning from Ser! above about ARBPIA edits due to low edit counts and Doug Heller for no edit descriptions were heeded. I stopped editing that topic after receiving those alerts, and I added more extensive edit summaries to my other edits, as suggested. For at least two weeks, I hadn't touched the ARBPIA topic. I was editing topics such as education and political news stories. Then, at random, I received a bunch of reverts and a block for past posts prior to being warned. This was after requesting a balanced change on a Talk page (which combined language from prior writing, added additional context, was completely neutral, and was agreed upon on the Talk page). I understand why Wikipedia takes so much care with that topic and others. I just feel as if my block is unjustified because I listened to the admins and stopped editing the topic when instructed. Throughout my editing, I have consistently used reliable sources and provided substantiated information. One admin told me to use a different source once, and I obliged. I never went against the admins' recommendation. I'm also new to this website, and it should be obvious that I'm trying to contribute new information across many pages and am not here only to contribute to ARBPIA, since 95% of my edits aren't on contentious topics. I'm a casual editor who enjoys writing and contributing to large projects. I also really like proofreading and fixing grammar. With an unblock, I hope to continue contributing to many topics and adding to news stories as they arise. I'll take care in all my edits and be mindful to make notes as I go. Since I know more about using Wikipedia than previously, editing will be much more seamless. At first, it was a bit confusing, but I'm getting the hang of it now. I hope I'll be reinstated on this website so I can continue contributing and become more acquainted. Thank you for your consideration.

Accept reason:

I'm going to give good faith here to this new editor. I hope I'm not wrong to do so. Doug Weller talk 10:20, 25 January 2026 (UTC)